By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 11 August 2008
We have less than 24 months before the start of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa; and the local tourism industry will undoubtedly be the biggest beneficiary of this historic event. Hotels, guest houses, bed-and-breakfast outlets and travel agencies will pocket the biggest share of the profit generated through the event.
Speaking in Germany during a ceremony to unveil the emblem for South Africa's 2010 FIFA World Cup in July 2006, President Thabo Mbeki invited “football fans of the world to journey to a tourist paradise across our magnificent continent of Africa”, adding that the World Cup “will stand out as a unique event that celebrates Africa in all its magnificent splendour, richness, vibrancy, diversity and glory.”
As a witness to tireless efforts by ordinary South Africans to ensure that the World Cup succeeds, I have no doubt about our ability as a country to host a successful event come 2010. South African workers around the country work literally around the clock to ensure that our stadiums, roads, water, electricity systems meet FIFA and the world’s high expectations.
My biggest fear, however, is that some in the tourism industry will use the historic 2010 FIFA World Cup as a get-rich-quick scheme at the expense of their hard-working employees, most of whom are poor African women. To these exploited workers, 2010 will mean longer working hours because of the high volume of tourists. At the end of it all, they will remain poor whilst their employers become richer.
During my recent stay at a popular resort in the North West province, I witnessed some shameful exploitation of workers in the tourism industry. One worker told me how he works from 6am till 10pm everyday, six days a week. That is a 16-hour working day – two times the average 8-hour day! For this, he gets a R1500 per month salary. No medical aid; no pension fund; no overtime compensation, no trade union affiliation.
Under these circumstances, government needs to intervene by conducting a massive audit to check compliance to labour law in the tourism industry. In our hotels, guest houses, lodges and other tourism outlets, the audit will uncover unprecedented violations of the rights of South African workers. Government would then blackmail wrongdoers so that they do not benefit from the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
As a country, we cannot continue to pride ourselves of being “a tourist paradise” whilst this paradise triumphs at the expense of our fellow poor South Africans.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
The likes of Mugabe impede 'Imperial Grand Strategy'
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 04 August 2008
In one of his brilliant books, Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for global dominance, author Noam Chomsky exposes America’s “grand imperial strategy”, which, he says, is aimed at ensuring America’s permanent dominance of the global political and economic landscape.
Chomsky says the aim of the “imperial grand strategy”, designed in 2002, is to “seek to construct a world system open to US economic penetration and political control, tolerating no rivals or threats.”
According to Chomsky: “A crucial corollary [of the strategy] is vigilance to block any moves toward independent development that might become a ‘virus infecting others’.” In other words, efforts by small or poor countries to inspire economic independence from the US must be blocked.
Another dominant player in global politics and economics is Europe , which had its equivalent to the “imperial grand strategy” in the form of the slave trade during the early years of the colonial period.
Walter Rodney, in his book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, details Europe ’s power to make unilateral decisions within the international trading system. “An excellent illustration of that,” writes Rodney, “is the fact that the so-called international law which governed the conduct of nations on the high seas was nothing else but European law.”
Rodney notes that: “Africans did not participate in [the] making [of this international law], and in many instances African people were simply the victims, for the law recognised them only as transportable merchandise.”
Things should be different today because the whole of Africa is independent; but, unfortunately, Africa ’s political freedom has not brought much change to ordinary Africans. In many instances, Africans are poorer than they were in the colonial period.
Some will blame Africa ’s present-day socio-economic situation on corruption by the political elite, forgetting that, in every corrupt transaction, there is the corruptor and the corrupted. Not much is said about the fact that many of Africa’s stolen assets are stored in foreign banks in so-called modern democratic states, mostly in Europe .
It is only when they refuse to cooperate in campaigns aimed at advancing the “imperial grand strategy” that members of Africa ’s political elite invite upon themselves the heavy hand of the self-appointed guardians of “international law.”
The Zimbabwean situation is hard to ignore. President Robert Mugabe was the darling of the West when he ensured that former Prime Minister Ian Smith is not prosecuted for previous atrocities committed under his leadership and when he made sure that white farmers maintain property rights to Zimbabwean land.
It is only when he started to roll out the controversial land reform policy that Mugabe irked the West. Before the land reform programme, no one seemed to demand justice for the victims of the Matebeleland massacre. The West was too busy conferring unsolicited honourary degrees and doctorates to the Zimbabwean leader.
In one of his brilliant books, Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for global dominance, author Noam Chomsky exposes America’s “grand imperial strategy”, which, he says, is aimed at ensuring America’s permanent dominance of the global political and economic landscape.
Chomsky says the aim of the “imperial grand strategy”, designed in 2002, is to “seek to construct a world system open to US economic penetration and political control, tolerating no rivals or threats.”
According to Chomsky: “A crucial corollary [of the strategy] is vigilance to block any moves toward independent development that might become a ‘virus infecting others’.” In other words, efforts by small or poor countries to inspire economic independence from the US must be blocked.
Another dominant player in global politics and economics is Europe , which had its equivalent to the “imperial grand strategy” in the form of the slave trade during the early years of the colonial period.
Walter Rodney, in his book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, details Europe ’s power to make unilateral decisions within the international trading system. “An excellent illustration of that,” writes Rodney, “is the fact that the so-called international law which governed the conduct of nations on the high seas was nothing else but European law.”
Rodney notes that: “Africans did not participate in [the] making [of this international law], and in many instances African people were simply the victims, for the law recognised them only as transportable merchandise.”
Things should be different today because the whole of Africa is independent; but, unfortunately, Africa ’s political freedom has not brought much change to ordinary Africans. In many instances, Africans are poorer than they were in the colonial period.
Some will blame Africa ’s present-day socio-economic situation on corruption by the political elite, forgetting that, in every corrupt transaction, there is the corruptor and the corrupted. Not much is said about the fact that many of Africa’s stolen assets are stored in foreign banks in so-called modern democratic states, mostly in Europe .
It is only when they refuse to cooperate in campaigns aimed at advancing the “imperial grand strategy” that members of Africa ’s political elite invite upon themselves the heavy hand of the self-appointed guardians of “international law.”
The Zimbabwean situation is hard to ignore. President Robert Mugabe was the darling of the West when he ensured that former Prime Minister Ian Smith is not prosecuted for previous atrocities committed under his leadership and when he made sure that white farmers maintain property rights to Zimbabwean land.
It is only when he started to roll out the controversial land reform policy that Mugabe irked the West. Before the land reform programme, no one seemed to demand justice for the victims of the Matebeleland massacre. The West was too busy conferring unsolicited honourary degrees and doctorates to the Zimbabwean leader.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Zim stalemate: Fanon was (and still is) right
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 29 July 2008
In his preface to Franz Fanon’s book, The Wretched of the Earth, Jean Paul-Sartre says, amongst other critical things, that, during the colonial period the colonial powers were satisfied to keep some feudal rulers in their pay in an attempt to divide-and-rule African communities.
“There, dividing and ruling [the colonisers have] created a native bourgeoisie, sham from beginning to end; elsewhere [the colonisers have] played a double game: the colony is planted with settlers and exploited at the same time. Thus Europe has multiplied divisions and opposing groups, has fashioned classes and sometimes even racial prejudices, and has endeavoured by every means to bring about and intensify the stratification of colonized societies,” writes Paul-Sartre.
First published in 1961, Fanon’s book makes so much relevance today it could have been published for the first time this year. Reading the book whilst comparing Fanon’s views against what is happening in Zimbabwe at the moment would raise your emotions (if you are a genuine and patriotic African).
Various national and international media have carried stories today indicating that the negotiations between various Zimbabwean political players have stalled.
Details of the reported stalemate are not available due to the media’s lack of access to the talks, but unnamed sources are quoted as saying that the talks have stalled due to Zanu-PF’s insistence that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai should be given an inferior position (such as second vice-president) in a transitional government.
The stalemate, if there really is a stalemate, is regrettable. However, regretting alone will not help. The parties must be encouraged by all, including the mediator/facilitator, President Thabo Mbeki, and international institutions such as the United Nations.
The Zimbabwean leaders taking part in the talks should avoid outside interference, especially from British and the United States diplomats and politicians.
The interests of these so-called Western powers is to ensure that the talks collapse so that they can get their man (President Robert Mugabe) out of office in a manner so dramatic that it will scare off other African leaders from attempting to grab land from white farmers.
The US and Britain seems to be hoping that the talks would collapse completely so that the further sanctions they are imposing on Mugabe and “his cronies” will ultimately pit the hungry Zimbabwean citizenry against Mugabe’s government in a street revolution.
The revolution would then necessitate the involvement of the undemocratic UN Security Council in ensuring that the Western powers send in troops to oust Mugabe, thus sending a clear message to other African leaders: that you are damned if you try to threaten the unfair economic dominance of the African community by people historically and emotionally aligned to the West.
Fanon was right is 1961 regarding the destructive role that Africa’s former colonial master were playing across the continent; and he is still right today about the same powerful donour states. Yes, they give us aid, but the value of the aid does not even amount to a quarter of the value of the mineral resources their mega companies get from Africa.
As Africans we have three choices in relation to the current international political and economic system. Firstly, we can oblige and remain permanently beholden to our former colonisers. Secondly, we can resist their interference as individual countries and have the whole of Africa become a present-day Zimbabwe. Thirdly, acting as a united collective, the African continent can break rank with the powerful donor states and become a Cuba.
In his preface to Franz Fanon’s book, The Wretched of the Earth, Jean Paul-Sartre says, amongst other critical things, that, during the colonial period the colonial powers were satisfied to keep some feudal rulers in their pay in an attempt to divide-and-rule African communities.
“There, dividing and ruling [the colonisers have] created a native bourgeoisie, sham from beginning to end; elsewhere [the colonisers have] played a double game: the colony is planted with settlers and exploited at the same time. Thus Europe has multiplied divisions and opposing groups, has fashioned classes and sometimes even racial prejudices, and has endeavoured by every means to bring about and intensify the stratification of colonized societies,” writes Paul-Sartre.
First published in 1961, Fanon’s book makes so much relevance today it could have been published for the first time this year. Reading the book whilst comparing Fanon’s views against what is happening in Zimbabwe at the moment would raise your emotions (if you are a genuine and patriotic African).
Various national and international media have carried stories today indicating that the negotiations between various Zimbabwean political players have stalled.
Details of the reported stalemate are not available due to the media’s lack of access to the talks, but unnamed sources are quoted as saying that the talks have stalled due to Zanu-PF’s insistence that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai should be given an inferior position (such as second vice-president) in a transitional government.
The stalemate, if there really is a stalemate, is regrettable. However, regretting alone will not help. The parties must be encouraged by all, including the mediator/facilitator, President Thabo Mbeki, and international institutions such as the United Nations.
The Zimbabwean leaders taking part in the talks should avoid outside interference, especially from British and the United States diplomats and politicians.
The interests of these so-called Western powers is to ensure that the talks collapse so that they can get their man (President Robert Mugabe) out of office in a manner so dramatic that it will scare off other African leaders from attempting to grab land from white farmers.
The US and Britain seems to be hoping that the talks would collapse completely so that the further sanctions they are imposing on Mugabe and “his cronies” will ultimately pit the hungry Zimbabwean citizenry against Mugabe’s government in a street revolution.
The revolution would then necessitate the involvement of the undemocratic UN Security Council in ensuring that the Western powers send in troops to oust Mugabe, thus sending a clear message to other African leaders: that you are damned if you try to threaten the unfair economic dominance of the African community by people historically and emotionally aligned to the West.
Fanon was right is 1961 regarding the destructive role that Africa’s former colonial master were playing across the continent; and he is still right today about the same powerful donour states. Yes, they give us aid, but the value of the aid does not even amount to a quarter of the value of the mineral resources their mega companies get from Africa.
As Africans we have three choices in relation to the current international political and economic system. Firstly, we can oblige and remain permanently beholden to our former colonisers. Secondly, we can resist their interference as individual countries and have the whole of Africa become a present-day Zimbabwe. Thirdly, acting as a united collective, the African continent can break rank with the powerful donor states and become a Cuba.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Western meddling will derail Zim talks
Further sanctions will harden Mugabe's attitude towards the talks and work in favour of his anti-imperialist rhetoric
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 23 July 2008
As Zimbabwean political parties begin talks – hopefully towards a negotiated settlement – it is opportune that we evaluate the likely outcomes of this very crucial process.
President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and the two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have put it in writing that they are committed to finding a genuine and lasting solution to the crisis in their country.
Despite the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding that saw the Zimbabwean parties agreeing on a framework for talks, I remain sceptical that the MDC will walk the talk and show real commitment to finding a solution.
The biggest obstacle to the talks is external meddling from so-called Western powers, led by Britain and the United States. Both countries have stated upfront that they will not recognise any leader except Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the bigger faction of the MDC.
When coupled with the MDC-Tsvangirai’s submissiveness, British and American interference in the Zimbabwean political negotiations is likely to derail any progress, thus threatening to lead to the collapse of the talks.
After having failed to push for sanctions against Zimbabwe through the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the US and the European Union are considering imposing further “targeted” sanctions against Mugabe and his allies.
Although punitive in nature, the sanctions will not deliver a lasting solution to the political and economic problems besieging Zimbabwe. In the contrary, the sanctions will work in favour of Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric.
The arrogance of the US and its allies is best described by comments attributed to the White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, who is said to have described China and Russia (both opposed to sanctions against Zimbabwe) as being “on the wrong side of history.”
The African Union (AU) must send a clear message to the US and the EU: that their interference in the political process in Zimbabwe will achieve nothing more than hardening Mugabe’s attitude towards the talks, thus making him unwilling to make significant compromises.
The AU must also make it clear to the Western powers that it is not for them (the Western powers) to choose who must lead a transitional government in Zimbabwe. It is up to the parties involved in the negotiations to decide on an appropriate model of a transitional government and delegate an appropriate leadership collective.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 23 July 2008
As Zimbabwean political parties begin talks – hopefully towards a negotiated settlement – it is opportune that we evaluate the likely outcomes of this very crucial process.
President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and the two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have put it in writing that they are committed to finding a genuine and lasting solution to the crisis in their country.
Despite the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding that saw the Zimbabwean parties agreeing on a framework for talks, I remain sceptical that the MDC will walk the talk and show real commitment to finding a solution.
The biggest obstacle to the talks is external meddling from so-called Western powers, led by Britain and the United States. Both countries have stated upfront that they will not recognise any leader except Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the bigger faction of the MDC.
When coupled with the MDC-Tsvangirai’s submissiveness, British and American interference in the Zimbabwean political negotiations is likely to derail any progress, thus threatening to lead to the collapse of the talks.
After having failed to push for sanctions against Zimbabwe through the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the US and the European Union are considering imposing further “targeted” sanctions against Mugabe and his allies.
Although punitive in nature, the sanctions will not deliver a lasting solution to the political and economic problems besieging Zimbabwe. In the contrary, the sanctions will work in favour of Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric.
The arrogance of the US and its allies is best described by comments attributed to the White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, who is said to have described China and Russia (both opposed to sanctions against Zimbabwe) as being “on the wrong side of history.”
The African Union (AU) must send a clear message to the US and the EU: that their interference in the political process in Zimbabwe will achieve nothing more than hardening Mugabe’s attitude towards the talks, thus making him unwilling to make significant compromises.
The AU must also make it clear to the Western powers that it is not for them (the Western powers) to choose who must lead a transitional government in Zimbabwe. It is up to the parties involved in the negotiations to decide on an appropriate model of a transitional government and delegate an appropriate leadership collective.
- See responses to this article on the following link on News24 website:
- http://www.news24.com/News24/MyNews24/Your_story/0,,2-2127-2128_2363106,00.html
Friday, June 27, 2008
Both Zanu-PF and MDC have failed Zimbabwe
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 27 June 2008
With every passing day, the political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe goes from bad to worse. It is obvious that President Robert Mugabe is the problem; and it is also clear that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai is not the answer.
The MDC and its allies in the international Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) sector believe in problem-solving through the media. They will not succeed in their efforts to find a solution to the crisis if they continue to pump money into expensive newspaper and other media advertisements, hoping that this will swing public opinion in their favour.
Having observed the MDC’s media campaign in South Africa over the last couple of weeks, it has emerged that, in an average week, there are at least eight full-page newspaper advertisements in the newspapers, all trying to discredit Mugabe.
Discrediting Mugabe through the media is a total waste of time, energy and money. The 84-year-old discredits himself with every public appearance he makes. The MDC and its allies must instead channel their money (and they seem to have it in abundance) into more strategic political campaigns.
Whilst Mugabe proves everyday that his time has passed, the MDC, under Morgan Tsvangirai, does not seem to be ready to govern. The MDC is not an authentic African opposition party. It is not comparable, in any way, with, for example, Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement in Kenya.
The MDC has more political allies in Europe and the United States than it has in the entire Africa. This at times gives credence to Mugabe’s hollow claims that the MDC are agents of imperialism. Zanu-PF terrorises the very nation it leberated from colonialism. The MDC fails to prove that it is a credible alternative. Zimbabwe is in a dilemma.
Perhaps it is time for both Mugabe and Tsvangirai to step aside and allow a new crop of leadership, preferably under a government of national unity, to take Zimbabwe out of the political and economic crisis that it now finds itself in. Simba Makoni could be suitable to lead such a transitional government.
With every passing day, the political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe goes from bad to worse. It is obvious that President Robert Mugabe is the problem; and it is also clear that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai is not the answer.
The MDC and its allies in the international Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) sector believe in problem-solving through the media. They will not succeed in their efforts to find a solution to the crisis if they continue to pump money into expensive newspaper and other media advertisements, hoping that this will swing public opinion in their favour.
Having observed the MDC’s media campaign in South Africa over the last couple of weeks, it has emerged that, in an average week, there are at least eight full-page newspaper advertisements in the newspapers, all trying to discredit Mugabe.
Discrediting Mugabe through the media is a total waste of time, energy and money. The 84-year-old discredits himself with every public appearance he makes. The MDC and its allies must instead channel their money (and they seem to have it in abundance) into more strategic political campaigns.
Whilst Mugabe proves everyday that his time has passed, the MDC, under Morgan Tsvangirai, does not seem to be ready to govern. The MDC is not an authentic African opposition party. It is not comparable, in any way, with, for example, Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement in Kenya.
The MDC has more political allies in Europe and the United States than it has in the entire Africa. This at times gives credence to Mugabe’s hollow claims that the MDC are agents of imperialism. Zanu-PF terrorises the very nation it leberated from colonialism. The MDC fails to prove that it is a credible alternative. Zimbabwe is in a dilemma.
Perhaps it is time for both Mugabe and Tsvangirai to step aside and allow a new crop of leadership, preferably under a government of national unity, to take Zimbabwe out of the political and economic crisis that it now finds itself in. Simba Makoni could be suitable to lead such a transitional government.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Book review: Legacies of Power
Book Title: Legacies of Power: leadership Change and Former Presidents in African Politics
Editors: Roger Southall and Henning Melber
ISBN: 91-7106-558-X
Reviewed by: Nelson Kgwete
One of South Africa’s biggest knowledge centres, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) Press, has published an insightful book on the role of former African heads of states.
Entitled “Legacies of Power: Leadership Change and Former Presidents in African Politics”, the book is a compilation of scholarly articles by various notable authors.
The book critically evaluates the roles, both positive and negative, that former presidents such as Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Sam Nujoma of Nabibia, Charles Taylor of Liberia and others play after their terms of office expire.
There is also a chapter on Zimbabwe; but, here, the authors focus not on former Prime Minister Ian Smith. Rather, and perhaps quite fittingly, the focus is on President Robert Mugabe.
Titled “When I am a century old: why Robert Mugabe won’t go”, the chapter on Mugabe instantly pulls one’s attention, particularly in view of the current volatile political and economic situation in that country.
The writer of the chapter on Mugabe, David Moore, explains why the 84-year-old president won’t leave office. Moore quotes Mugabe as having told a rally as far back as July 1977 that: “The Zanu axe must continue to fall upon the necks of rebels when we find it no longer possible to persuade them into the harmony that binds us all.”
In the chapter, “Politics and presidential term limits in Uganda”, author Roger Tangri begins with a quote by Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni during his January 1986 swearing-in address when he said: “The problem of Africa in general and Uganda in particular is not the people but leaders who want to overstay in power”.
Curiously, Museveni is still in power today, 22 years after making that bold statement. Tangri outlines two reasons why Museveni, previously in favour of change of political leadership, has joined the ranks of those leaders “who want to overstay in power”.
Firstly, it is argued that, being the dominant political figure he is in Ugandan politics, Museveni does not see anyone else filling his shoes. Related to that, Tangri says there are some in Museveni’s so-called inner circle who want him to stay so they can continue to enjoy proximity to political power.
Secondly, Tangri argues that Museveni wants to stay on as President because he fears that a new political administration will uncover corruption committed by him or close allies under his leadership. Museveni “fears that his erstwhile political allies, now leading the political opposition, could attain political power and seek to settle old scores,” writes Tangri.
Not surprisingly, the chapter on Mandela is full of praises, except for the assertion that Mandela was not quite as effective in his mediation efforts in Africa as many would have thought. Mandela’s failed bid to stop then Nigerian President Sani Abacha from killing critic Ken Saro Wiwa is cited as an example.
Other chapters are no less enlightening. The writers rely on thorough research and their writing ranks amongst the highest in their academic quality.
Editors: Roger Southall and Henning Melber
ISBN: 91-7106-558-X
Reviewed by: Nelson Kgwete
One of South Africa’s biggest knowledge centres, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) Press, has published an insightful book on the role of former African heads of states.
Entitled “Legacies of Power: Leadership Change and Former Presidents in African Politics”, the book is a compilation of scholarly articles by various notable authors.
The book critically evaluates the roles, both positive and negative, that former presidents such as Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Sam Nujoma of Nabibia, Charles Taylor of Liberia and others play after their terms of office expire.
There is also a chapter on Zimbabwe; but, here, the authors focus not on former Prime Minister Ian Smith. Rather, and perhaps quite fittingly, the focus is on President Robert Mugabe.
Titled “When I am a century old: why Robert Mugabe won’t go”, the chapter on Mugabe instantly pulls one’s attention, particularly in view of the current volatile political and economic situation in that country.
The writer of the chapter on Mugabe, David Moore, explains why the 84-year-old president won’t leave office. Moore quotes Mugabe as having told a rally as far back as July 1977 that: “The Zanu axe must continue to fall upon the necks of rebels when we find it no longer possible to persuade them into the harmony that binds us all.”
In the chapter, “Politics and presidential term limits in Uganda”, author Roger Tangri begins with a quote by Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni during his January 1986 swearing-in address when he said: “The problem of Africa in general and Uganda in particular is not the people but leaders who want to overstay in power”.
Curiously, Museveni is still in power today, 22 years after making that bold statement. Tangri outlines two reasons why Museveni, previously in favour of change of political leadership, has joined the ranks of those leaders “who want to overstay in power”.
Firstly, it is argued that, being the dominant political figure he is in Ugandan politics, Museveni does not see anyone else filling his shoes. Related to that, Tangri says there are some in Museveni’s so-called inner circle who want him to stay so they can continue to enjoy proximity to political power.
Secondly, Tangri argues that Museveni wants to stay on as President because he fears that a new political administration will uncover corruption committed by him or close allies under his leadership. Museveni “fears that his erstwhile political allies, now leading the political opposition, could attain political power and seek to settle old scores,” writes Tangri.
Not surprisingly, the chapter on Mandela is full of praises, except for the assertion that Mandela was not quite as effective in his mediation efforts in Africa as many would have thought. Mandela’s failed bid to stop then Nigerian President Sani Abacha from killing critic Ken Saro Wiwa is cited as an example.
Other chapters are no less enlightening. The writers rely on thorough research and their writing ranks amongst the highest in their academic quality.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Why Helen Zille's idea will not materialise
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 June 2008
The leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Helen Zille, was quoted in the media recently suggesting that opposition parties such as her own, the DA, the United Democratic Movement (UDM) and the Independent Democrats (ID) form a formidable coalition to challenge the African National Congress's dominance of the South African political landscape.
In response to the idea, the leader of the UDM, Bantu Holomisa, did not reject the idea, saying there was a need to explore ways of uniting South Africa's opposition political parties. ID leader Patricia De Lille said she would not comment on whether her party will be willing to join such a coalition. De Lille said it was up to members of her party to decide.
Holomisa seemed to have looked at Zille's idea innocently and, as a result, he seems to have overlooked some critical factors that will hinder the success of any coalition of united opposition parties. There are at least two critical reasons why Zille's idea will most likely not materialise any time soon.
Firstly, any coalition of opposition parties will have to deal with the question of leadership. And, here, at issue will be the racial group to which the leader belongs. Realistically, the majority of black people opposed to the ANC's rule may be reluctant to accept a white person as their leader. The same may apply to white people: they may not trust a black leader to represent their interests.
We are now 14 years into our democracy, but, despite talk of a "Rainbow Nation", we still have two South Africas - one white and another black. President Thabo Mbeki was criticised for pointing to this reality in the early years of his presidency, but the fact remains: South Africans are still divided along racial lines.
Secondly, the idea of the coalition may be seen as a plot by the DA to swallow the smaller opposition political parties in the same way that its predecessor, the Democratic Party, tried to swallow the now-defunct Nation Party. DA supporters, both black and white, seem to be having very little confidence in the ability of black people to lead an effective government.
The combination of hostile race relations and power mongering will make Zille?s dream of a united opposition movement remain just that - a dream. South Africans of different racial groupings and varied interests must respect and trust each other before attempting to jump into a political coalition.
The leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Helen Zille, was quoted in the media recently suggesting that opposition parties such as her own, the DA, the United Democratic Movement (UDM) and the Independent Democrats (ID) form a formidable coalition to challenge the African National Congress's dominance of the South African political landscape.
In response to the idea, the leader of the UDM, Bantu Holomisa, did not reject the idea, saying there was a need to explore ways of uniting South Africa's opposition political parties. ID leader Patricia De Lille said she would not comment on whether her party will be willing to join such a coalition. De Lille said it was up to members of her party to decide.
Holomisa seemed to have looked at Zille's idea innocently and, as a result, he seems to have overlooked some critical factors that will hinder the success of any coalition of united opposition parties. There are at least two critical reasons why Zille's idea will most likely not materialise any time soon.
Firstly, any coalition of opposition parties will have to deal with the question of leadership. And, here, at issue will be the racial group to which the leader belongs. Realistically, the majority of black people opposed to the ANC's rule may be reluctant to accept a white person as their leader. The same may apply to white people: they may not trust a black leader to represent their interests.
We are now 14 years into our democracy, but, despite talk of a "Rainbow Nation", we still have two South Africas - one white and another black. President Thabo Mbeki was criticised for pointing to this reality in the early years of his presidency, but the fact remains: South Africans are still divided along racial lines.
Secondly, the idea of the coalition may be seen as a plot by the DA to swallow the smaller opposition political parties in the same way that its predecessor, the Democratic Party, tried to swallow the now-defunct Nation Party. DA supporters, both black and white, seem to be having very little confidence in the ability of black people to lead an effective government.
The combination of hostile race relations and power mongering will make Zille?s dream of a united opposition movement remain just that - a dream. South Africans of different racial groupings and varied interests must respect and trust each other before attempting to jump into a political coalition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
